Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Wyoming upheld a lower court's decision to grant a divorce, award the mother custody of two minor children, order the father to pay child support, and divide the marital property between the parties. The father had appealed the decision, challenging the court's division of property and its child support and custody decisions. The father and mother had been married since 2015 and had two children. The father was self-employed at a trucking company, and the mother stayed home with the children and homeschooled one of them. The court found that both parties could provide adequate care for the children, but that the mother had been their primary caretaker. The court also concluded that it was in the children's best interest for the mother to have custody. The court determined the father's net monthly income for child support purposes and ordered him to pay the mother monthly alimony for a period of time. The court also divided the marital property, awarding the mother more property because she had left established employment to be a homemaker and caretaker for the children. The Supreme Court determined that these decisions were a reasonable exercise of discretion by the lower court and affirmed the decision. View "Hyatt v. Hyatt" on Justia Law

In a divorce case, the appellant, Mr. James Baker, contested the decree entered by a successor district judge after the original district judge who presided over the trial retired. Mr. Baker argued that the successor judge violated his right to due process by making findings of fact and conclusions of law without a formal certification under the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure (W.R.C.P.) 63.The Supreme Court of Wyoming concluded that Mr. Baker had waived his right to object to the successor judge's procedure. During a status conference, in which the successor judge proposed to proceed with determining the case based on the trial transcripts, Mr. Baker's counsel affirmed this approach and requested the court to make a ruling based on the existing record. Therefore, the court ruled that Mr. Baker intentionally relinquished his right to object to the successor judge's procedure, constituting a waiver.The court also clarified that the language in W.R.C.P. 63 does not necessitate the successor judge to advise the parties of their rights under the rule. The court found no authority supporting an affirmative duty for the successor judge to do so. Hence, the court affirmed the decree of divorce entered by the successor district court judge. View "Baker v. Baker" on Justia Law

In the child protection case before the Supreme Court of Wyoming, the appellant, Dominique Desiree Sciacca (Mother), contested the termination of her parental rights to her minor child, JDD. The Department of Family Services had filed a petition for termination based on Mother's neglect of the child and her failure to comply with a reunification plan. The District Court of Goshen County granted the Department's petition. On appeal, Mother did not dispute the grounds for termination but argued that her due process rights were violated because she was not physically present in court for the termination hearing, although she was allowed to participate by phone. She also contended that the court violated procedural rules by allowing her to testify by phone from the same location as the child's father, without adequate safeguards to protect her from his influence. The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no violation of due process or procedural rules. The court ruled that Mother was given a meaningful opportunity to be heard and that the lower court had implemented sufficient safeguards during her phone testimony. View "In the Matter of the Termination of Parental Rights To: JJD v. State of Wyoming, Ex Rel. Department of Family Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court holding Nicole and Andy Ward in contempt for failing to comply with a visitation order and then issuing an order modifying Brett and Isabel Beldens' visitation to better accommodate the parties' needs and obligations, holding that there was no error.In 2019, the Beldens, the grandparents of the children of their deceased son, were granted visitation after their relationship with Nicole soured. In 2022, Andy the children's stepfather, adopted the children. Thereafter, the Wards informed the Beldens that they would no longer comply with the order of grandparent visitation. The Beldens filed a motion to enforce the visitation order, and the Wards filed a petition to modify the visitation order. The district court (1) held the Wards in contempt for their failure to comply with the original visitation order; and (2) modified the Beldens' visitation after finding that good cause existed to amend the order. View "Ward v. Belden" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the judgment of the district court in this marriage dissolution action, holding that the district court did not err in granting Wife's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Wyo. R. Civ. P. 59, and this Court declines to impose sanctions under Wyo. R. App. P. 10.05.After a bench trial the district court entered a decree of divorce dividing the martial assets and ordering Wife to make a lump sum equalization payment to Husband subject to statutory interest. Wife moved to alter or amend the judgment requesting a payment plan without interest for the equalization payment. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed, holding that Husband's brief on appeal was deficient in several respects and lacked cogent argument. View "McInerney v. Kramer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting Wife's motion filed under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 60 seeking to set aside a stipulated final decree of divorce due to inadvertence or mistake, holding that the stipulated decree was ambiguous, and the record was insufficient to support the district court's interpretation.After the stipulated decree was entered in this case Husband refinanced the marital home. Wife believed she was entitled to half of the net equity in the home at the completion of the refinance, but Husband argued that she was only entitled to half the net proceeds if the house was sold. The district court granted Wife's Rule 60 motion determining that the stipulated decree unambiguously required Husband to pay Wife half the equity in the property from the refinance or sale of the home. The court entered an order requiring that any equity recognized through sale or refinance of the home was to be equally divided between the two parties. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) the stipulated decree was ambiguous as to whether Husband was required to provide Wife half the net proceeds in the event of refinance; and (2) the record did not contain sufficient evidence to clarify the stipulated decree under Rule 60(a). View "Van Vlack v. Van Vlack" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court changing the permanency plan in this case to adoption, holding that remand was required because the juvenile court failed to make the required reasonable efforts determination.In 2021, Child was taken into protective custody. The Department of Family Services (DFS) subsequently implemented a case plan for Mother and Child with the goal of family reunification. Eighteen months later, the court changed the permanency plan to adoption because Mother had made little to no progress on the plan. The order, however, contained no findings regarding DFS's reasonable efforts to reunite Mother and Child. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the juvenile court's written order was devoid of the required reasonable efforts determination remand was required for the juvenile court to make that determination. View "RN v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court modifying Father's child support, holding that Mother was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Mother argued that the district court abused its discretion when it calculated Father's net monthly income without first obtaining sufficient financial information and by calculating her net monthly income contrary to the evidence on the record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) obtained sufficient financial information to calculate Father's net monthly income; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in calculating Mother's net monthly income. View "Corbitt v. Davidson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court awarding Mother primary custody of the couple's two children and dividing the marital property, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Father filed for divorce, and Mother counterclaimed for divorce. After a trial, the district court granted the parties a decree, awarded Mother primary custody of the parties' two children, ordered Father to pay Mother monthly child support, and divided the marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by admitting the opinion testimony and report of one of Mother's witnesses because Mother's failure to designate that witness as an expert witness was harmless; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by granting Mother primary custody or in its division of the marital property. View "Dutka v. Dutka" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Mother's motion for default and making final a temporary child support order from 2018, holding that the district court erred.In this appeal, Father challenged a district court order granting Mother's motion for default and making final a 2018 temporary child support order, arguing, among other things, that the district court violated his right to due process by granting Motion's motion for default before the closing of his twenty-day response window under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 6(c)(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Father timely filed his notice of appeal, and therefore, this Court had jurisdiction; (2) the district court violated Father's right to due process by granting Mother's motion before Father's opportunity to respond expired; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by making the 2018 temporary child support order the final order without obtaining sufficient financial information under Wyo. Stat. Ann. 20-2-308. View "Tucker v. Tucker" on Justia Law